|
Been taking a look at some other skirmish systems and I think Saga has spoiled me on how ludicrously simple its army lists are
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 22:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 22:17 |
|
|
A Song of Blades & Heroes/Drums & Shakos? Lion Rampant/Pikeman's Lament? Or are you looking at Force on Force or something? I did recently take a little sojourn into Advanced Squad Leader - that's a real challenge! I fancy another war game tonight: Dear Thread, what do you think? Pike and shot or pre-dreadnought naval combat?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 07:18
|
|
|
Southern Heel posted:pre-dreadnought naval combat? No contest.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 07:32
|
|
|
spectralent posted:I feel like, so far, I've found actual turn rollovers to be very rare. Maybe it's just the amount of games I've played so far, but... In general I agree although in the game I wrote up I had something like three or four, none of which did anything other than give someone a bad roll. Southern Heel posted:I fancy another war game tonight: Dear Thread, what do you think? Pike and shot or pre-dreadnought naval combat? I'd also be interested in a pre-dreadnought game!
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 10:57
|
|
|
i've done a buit of research onto them and read the variant rules published by the original authors and some aars, but i'm going to ask here too - anyone have experience with Big Bolt Action or Big Chain of Command? i'm assembling 15 mm terrain for my pike and shot and maybe medieval armies to fight over and i'm exploring the idea of printing some of the 15 mm ww2 stls i have (a couple march to hell kickstarters). thinking to base individually and play BA or CoC at 15 and just leave all measurements the same (except play on a big 9x5 table also). but it would be cool to have the option of doing "big" skirmish games of that nature at the company+ scale instead
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 19:07
|
|
|
Southern Heel posted:A Song of Blades & Heroes/Drums & Shakos? Lion Rampant/Pikeman's Lament? Or are you looking at Force on Force or something? I did recently take a little sojourn into Advanced Squad Leader - that's a real challenge! Yeah I mentioned it elsewhere and someone suggested the Rampant series, which doesn't have the cool command/control stuff as Sharp Practice or Musket & Tomahawk but is a hell of a lot simpler
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 19:12
|
|
|
hot cocoa on the couch posted:i've done a buit of research onto them and read the variant rules published by the original authors and some aars, but i'm going to ask here too - anyone have experience with Big Bolt Action or Big Chain of Command? i'm assembling 15 mm terrain for my pike and shot and maybe medieval armies to fight over and i'm exploring the idea of printing some of the 15 mm ww2 stls i have (a couple march to hell kickstarters). thinking to base individually and play BA or CoC at 15 and just leave all measurements the same (except play on a big 9x5 table also). but it would be cool to have the option of doing "big" skirmish games of that nature at the company+ scale instead I play in 15mm and for the most part it's the same but looks a little more "realistic" but a little less cinematic. Which is really entirely down to preference - 15mm figs are cheaper, which was the deciding factor for me!
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 19:30
|
|
|
ive played BA v1 and i'm wondering if the new "snap to it" rule in v2 would make it a little more conducive to company scale games? since officers can compel several units to act, that should speed up the game some?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 21:27
|
|
|
I dunno, you'd still be moving and activating individual models and drawing activation for each separate squad. Yeah it would speed it up some but to me anything above platoon scale takes multibasing to be time effecient.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 21:54
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Yeah I mentioned it elsewhere and someone suggested the Rampant series, which doesn't have the cool command/control stuff as Sharp Practice or Musket & Tomahawk but is a hell of a lot simpler I don’t want to tell you your business, but one of the major things about the rampant series is the command and control friction of ordering troops to do things which they may be better or worse at? Do you push your luck activating a steadfast unit, which is potentially less pivotal in the battle, or risk a more daring move that might turn on the tide? I personally have come to realise that I don’t particularly like when orders fail! Maybe that’s because I’m playing against myself most of the time and there isn’t any “ha ha gotcha” moment .
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 21:57
|
|
|
Yeah to rephrase, I really like the idea of the officer mechanics and chit pulls in Sharp Practice, especially when compared to just a flat "whoops you failed." And i think the deployment mechanic in SP is cool as well. But then I haven't actually played Rampant and only a bit of SP. E: and Musket & Tomahawk has a neat spin on chit pulls where you're playing a hand of cards instead of just randomly pulling one, but the rest of the game doesn't seem that interesting. I guess the completely random turn end in SP isn't something I really like but again only tried it a little StashAugustine fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Aug 8, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 22:04
|
|
|
Here's my post-battle report for Grand Fleets - I took out my Royal Navy ships against a bolstered Russian fleet, all roughly centred around what was afloat around the time of the Russo-Japanese war. In this case, the Royal Navy China Station circa 1903 gets notification the Russian Pacific Squadron is on the move, and the military alliance with Japan means steps must be undertaken to stop the Great Bear. Russia's fleet is three squadrons: Two modern ships from the Baltic Squadron "Peresvet" and "Pobeda", Three older ships in "Gromoboj", "Rossiya" and "Rurik", and a flotilla of Torpedo boat destroyers. The Royal navy sends out a quartet of Canopus-class ships in one squadron: "Albion", "Ocean", "Glory", and "Vengeance", and a pair of slower Majestic-class ships, "Hannibal" and "Caesar" in another:  After a preemptory manouvring, the Glory and Ocean are able to range easily and start pouring 12" shellfire onto the Peresvet:  The Canopus squadron breaks south, while Majestic peels north. The Russian trident tries to form a proper battle line, the destroyers hanging back under the protection of the Peresvet squadron:  Some very lucky shooting by the Glory and Ocean knock the Peresvet out almost immediately with fire and engine failure:  The Glory takes a hit under the waterline and becomes flooded, while the Peresvet is sunk and the Pobeda takes a rudder hit jamming it to starboard:  Glory, floundering at the head of the RN column and causes it to spread out in disarray:  The Canopus and Rossiya squadrons mingle in close-range broadsides:  Though the Rossiya squadron are able to loose their guns first, they are simply unable to make up for the damage inflicted by the RN ships:  The final coup de grace is the Majestic Squadron sinking the Pobeda:  Ultimately the Russians were the first to lose two squadrons - over half of their fleet - and once again the Navy head back to base for a cuppa and a pat on the back. I like the difficulty in ship manouvering - if you move less than 4" then you are easier to hit, and if you turn then you sacrifice half your movement. Given the quite severe penalties on shooting from a front/rear arc and lower armour, and that line of sight is bridge-to-bridge and can't cross any other models, knowing how to move is a key skill in the game and that comes out in droves. I felt the RN did well initially, but when their Canopus-class flagship got hit, it all fell to pieces in a general melee. The Russians never really had a chance, the dice were against them in both initiative rolls and firing/damage. I appreciate the elegance that all of the modifiers are applied in a single dice roll for shooting - range, armour penetration, target size, distance, etc. etc. - but it means that every shot from every ship needs to be measured and then those modifiers applied to a shooting table to calculate exactly how many dice you roll. Even ships with the same arnament in the same squadron firing at the same target will have their shots fall into different range bands for their weapons. I like the IDEA of these rules and I do get excited about playing, but when I actually sit down and play it's a heck of alot of cross referencing and table-checking.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 22:39
|
|
|
That's a great little battle report. I always had the impression Grand Fleets was quite wordy - I take it you found it quite accessible?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 23:20
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:E: and Musket & Tomahawk has a neat spin on chit pulls where you're playing a hand of cards instead of just randomly pulling one, but the rest of the game doesn't seem that interesting. I guess the completely random turn end in SP isn't something I really like but again only tried it a little To defend the rest of the game, the hiding/spotting system is really intuitive and clever in a way that rewards you for trying to be sneaky without it being on/off whether the opponents army can murder you, and the little boons/banes your leaders can have which are very fun in a way that feels more natural, flavoursome, and not as debilitating as some other wargames.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2023 01:17
|
|
|
I absolutely love M&T.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2023 02:13
|
|
|
Cassa posted:To defend the rest of the game, the hiding/spotting system is really intuitive and clever in a way that rewards you for trying to be sneaky without it being on/off whether the opponents army can murder you, and the little boons/banes your leaders can have which are very fun in a way that feels more natural, flavoursome, and not as debilitating as some other wargames. Yeah tbf it looked interesting, but it seems like the army lists are basically just napoleonics and colonial America, and looks like they'd be hard to easily homebrew. I'd be glad to hear people talk about it more because that card system does sound really interesting
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2023 02:38
|
|
|
Yeah the activation stuff is supremely neat too. The review goes into depth but to quote the addendum jcdent wrote: quote:You get four cards for each unit type (regulars, skirmishers, etc.) present in you army, even if it’s only a single unit of that type. All the command cards plus two special cards of both players plus three clock cards are mixed together to make a deck. Each player draws a hand of three. On your “turn” you play a card and activate all the units of said faction and type – say, British Regulars. You can play enemy cards, too – in which case the enemy activates, but you get a valuable command point. So while you may wind up with a pile of enemy cards in your hands, being able to dictate the enemies actions is also quite useful for your own plans in many ways.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2023 03:42
|
|
|
hot cocoa on the couch posted:ive played BA v1 and i'm wondering if the new "snap to it" rule in v2 would make it a little more conducive to company scale games? since officers can compel several units to act, that should speed up the game some? Are you likely to be playing solo? I would have thought big games would be fairly manageable with a couple of players a side. Otherwise both BA and CoC play pretty quickly in general at their normal sizes, so even their big versions probably wouldn't take much longer than more complex rulesets. It might be an all day affair rather than an evening event. Southern Heel posted:Here's my post-battle report for Grand Fleets Thanks for the write up, seemed a bit one sided maybe as you said but that brawl looked like chaos. I imagine checking all the charts for that would have taken a considerable time. I've yet to see a set of naval rules for post ironclads that didn't rely on a billion cross-referenced tables to figure out effect. At least you weren't playing Harpoon I guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2023 06:45
|
|
|
INinja132 posted:Thanks for the write up, seemed a bit one sided maybe as you said but that brawl looked like chaos. I imagine checking all the charts for that would have taken a considerable time. spectralent posted:That's a great little battle report. I always had the impression Grand Fleets was quite wordy - I take it you found it quite accessible? Thank you both for the kind words. The battle did turn out a little one-sided - mostly because the British were able to land a few heavy blows on the Peresvet on the fore arc and then present a broadside. Much like how I imagine real combat would take place, you can plan but if you lose the initiative and are forced to move first, your enemy can position themselves much more favourably. It's not quite binary - but being able to move last and shoot first (i.e. a high initiative roll) is devastating, particularly if (as in the case of the royal navy) you are able to cross the tee. The Russians almost managed it before the melee in the south, but bad dice rolling put paid to it. Grand Fleets Mini-Review: Very little complexity, not too wordy (base rules are 5 pages, plus one page of reference tables). Really thematic and FEELS like massive battleships and titanic weapons, but annoying mental arithmetic for gunnery. For EVERY BATTERY SHOT you need to: - Check the distance and thus which rangeband (-1, 0, or +1) - Check the arc (typically -2 or -3 for front/rear arcs) - Check if a weapon battery is damaged (up to -5) - Check the AP vs target Armour difference (+1 to -4: The limited positive is because after a certain point guns which have massive AP against lightly armoured targets are fired at a disadvantage, since they are likely to punch through the ship rather than explode) For each ship being fired at, you also of course also have to factor in if it has had big guns fired at it (-1 per) and what speed it is travelling (+1 or -1) and its size (+1 to -1) too. It is basically impossible to internalise what attack dice you need since the range/damage/relative AP are always different, so you have to go through that process each time. Almost every single facet of real world ships is factored into the gunnery tables - shell weight and velocity, belt armour and composition, etc. and I think that's the game's major problem: it's a very simple game mechanically, but has very arduous calculations for shooting in order to satisfy the need for a simulation. Southern Heel fucked around with this message at 12:46 on Aug 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2023 11:36
|
|
|
INinja132 posted:Are you likely to be playing solo? I would have thought big games would be fairly manageable with a couple of players a side. Otherwise both BA and CoC play pretty quickly in general at their normal sizes, so even their big versions probably wouldn't take much longer than more complex rulesets. It might be an all day affair rather than an evening event. yeah i'll play solo probably around 1/3-1/2 the time. but when playing big BA or CoC it would probably still be 1v1 or potentially 1v2 or 2v2 if the stars can align for the schedules of adults with families. i was thinking the same, that they're already fairly quick affairs, plus with the "snap to" group moves/shooting in BA that could potentially cut down on any analysis paralysis that could occur when there's 30 units on the table. turn 1 for sure would be quicker as well anyway i'm gonna go ahead with painting some ww2 15s and we'll just see where this goes
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2023 13:44
|
|
|
Southern Heel posted:cool poo poo naval stuff has really got my attention lately. too bad i have too many projects ongoing already (literally just added ww2 skirmish lmfao). i picked up nimitz and really wanna do a pacific halsey campaign. long term plans.....
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2023 13:45
|
|
|
how does the playing experience of flames of war and o group compare to coc? are they as fun to play, and do they feel realistic?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2023 14:47
|
|
|
hot cocoa on the couch posted:naval stuff has really got my attention lately. too bad i have too many projects ongoing already (literally just added ww2 skirmish lmfao). i picked up nimitz and really wanna do a pacific halsey campaign. long term plans..... Do it and post about it! Nimitz has been on my list for a while but like you I've been trying to get through all the poo poo I have piling my desk already.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2023 14:47
|
|
|
ChubbyChecker posted:how does the playing experience of flames of war and o group compare to coc? are they as fun to play, and do they feel realistic? idk about o group but Flames of War and it's sister game WW3: Team Yankee are both far more "pick-up" school of design than they are simulationist or "let's agree to the game before we get to the club and set up an interesting scenario". This may or may not be to your taste - there are standardised missions, a (relatively) functional points system, and beyond the three "eras" (39-41, 42-43, 44+) in Flames of War, very little to localise the armies - the game works just fine, and indeed assumes you will sometimes play, with matchups like Hungarians vs US or Iranians vs West Germans. Now - this may or may not be a good or bad thing for you. It does mean you get things like desert rats fighting cossacks, yeah, but that also means you're able to show up to a game night and play whoever. It's the 40k style mould of play expectations - pickup games, competitive but not necessarily competiton, and balanced fair-fight scenarios over narrative ones that might be more swingy. Fun, I can't speak to - that'll be personal preference. I've had plenty of fun playing it, but then, I've played with friends. I imagine I'd have had just as much fun playing X-wing and probably more fun with CoC, but I never found the rules or balance to be so poor I left the evening with a bad taste in my mouth like I occasionally did with 40k. Likewise the game's just not so complex that you're going to spend ages struggling to understand what you're doing wrong as you get your poo poo pushed in over and over, which was an experience I had with Warmahordes (and is often said of Infinity and Malifaux, though I found both of those nowhere near as bad). The game is generally quick-playing - there's perhaps a little unnecessary rolling, but there's no charts and assaults are always nicely decisive with no "tarpitting" - basically, they always end with one side falling back (typically with losses) or everyone being dead. There are essentially no C&C elements, beyond checking for if units rout and seeing if reserves show up. Does it feel realistic? Eh, not really! I don't feel like that's overly pejorative - it's not trying to be realistic, it's trying to be a tabletop version of Company of Heroes or something like it. It's a WW2-themed strategy game that draws as heavily on movie tropes and stories from Commando as it is actual history. It engages in a lot of eastern front myths, though it's better than when it used to be heavily seasoned with "crack SS division" tropes (the SS, these days, are fanatical but mediocre troops). In mechanical terms, units take absurb amounts of fire to kill, and even more dead to flee. As mentioned, C&C concerns are nonexistent - units will go where told and shoot what they're told to, absent things like stunned tanks failing to recover or bogging down. Tanks are omnipresent and tend to most of your work. Ranges are tiny for the game's scale, and the amount of stuff you can put on the table leads to a very crowded look. As mentioned, you can have finnish tank companies fighting nisei infantry. It's all kind of nonsensical - but... again, the game aims to be a good engine for fair fights between whatever two random visitors to a game store's wargame nights happened to bring, and it does pretty well at that. Don't know if that helps, but hopefully there's at least something useful there!
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2023 16:47
|
|
|
I'd like to add on to that FoW question there if I could: One of my local game shops does these G I A N T themed games a few times a year; like using sometimes 20 tables with custom terrain and all this. They're generally themed on the anniversary of a certain battle, so they do D-Day in June, then we have Market Garden coming up soon, etc. I really want to play in one of these, so I decided to grab some FoW minis but I know that the system doesn't always have the best reputation in "strict" historical circles, so my question is this: Do other systems (CoC I hear discussed often) use the same basing conventions, like 4 dudes to a normal infantry stand and that sort of thing? Like if I get into FoW and build everything for that, am I basically locked ONLY to that system or are things essentially transferrable?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2023 17:25
|
|
|
EdsTeioh posted:I'd like to add on to that FoW question there if I could: One of my local game shops does these G I A N T themed games a few times a year; like using sometimes 20 tables with custom terrain and all this. They're generally themed on the anniversary of a certain battle, so they do D-Day in June, then we have Market Garden coming up soon, etc. I really want to play in one of these, so I decided to grab some FoW minis but I know that the system doesn't always have the best reputation in "strict" historical circles, so my question is this: Do other systems (CoC I hear discussed often) use the same basing conventions, like 4 dudes to a normal infantry stand and that sort of thing? Like if I get into FoW and build everything for that, am I basically locked ONLY to that system or are things essentially transferrable? ww2 basing seems to follow a pretty common thread: singly based for skirmish, or 3-5 guys on a base for everything else. FoW bases work fine for any 1:1 company scale games, they generally all use bases of half-sections/squads like FoW. or you can call them squads, or platoons, and play the larger battalion to division scale stuff like blitzkrieg commander (that's the one i'm familiar with) btw CoC is a skirmish game designed for 28 mm so the rules assume you're playing with singles
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2023 17:28
|
|
|
they do but also you keep all your guys together within a section so you could use FoW teams as a section and just track casualties with dice or whatever!
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2023 17:43
|
|
|
spectralent posted:they do but also you keep all your guys together within a section so you could use FoW teams as a section and just track casualties with dice or whatever! that's very true as well
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2023 17:45
|
|
|
Right on! I'm gonna grab the Hit the Beach thingy this week but then I'm selling a bunch of Necrons this weekend, so I'll probably roll that over into like an American starter set or something. Or that plus a German one since I think there's a ton of stuff I'm selling; unless anyone has any better advice on starting out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2023 17:47
|
|
|
hot cocoa on the couch posted:yeah i'll play solo probably around 1/3-1/2 the time. but when playing big BA or CoC it would probably still be 1v1 or potentially 1v2 or 2v2 if the stars can align for the schedules of adults with families. i was thinking the same, that they're already fairly quick affairs, plus with the "snap to" group moves/shooting in BA that could potentially cut down on any analysis paralysis that could occur when there's 30 units on the table. turn 1 for sure would be quicker as well Looking forward to seeing how you get on. One trick you could try pulling is to not start with everything on the table at once, and time the reinforcements so that starting units are at least partially reduced before everyone piles in. Obviously CoC already does this to an extent but I don't know how the Big version of it changes unit entry.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2023 18:08
|
|
|
INinja132 posted:Looking forward to seeing how you get on. One trick you could try pulling is to not start with everything on the table at once, and time the reinforcements so that starting units are at least partially reduced before everyone piles in. Obviously CoC already does this to an extent but I don't know how the Big version of it changes unit entry. Big not only keeps that but it also adds "reserve platoons", so a proportion of the teams have to be called on by a senior leader instead of coming in on their 2 or 3.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2023 18:12
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Don't know if that helps, but hopefully there's at least something useful there! it does, thanks! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2023 20:31
|
|
|
Work is progressing on my Persian heavy cavalry. It's a lot of steps (probably eight separate sessions just for the horse armour sculpting and curing), but I think it looks promising enough to get started on the five other horses.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2023 21:11
|
|
|
finished the Big Man and his boys so that's 1 pikemans lament army done. just a bit of flock. on to the next, gonna do some cuirassiers and a cannon + another foot regimnet  
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2023 04:07
|
|
|
hot cocoa on the couch posted:finished the Big Man and his boys so that's 1 pikemans lament army done. just a bit of flock. on to the next, gonna do some cuirassiers and a cannon + another foot regimnet Absolutely loving it - have you tried playing the game yet, even with reduced unit count? I don't know if it was any inspiration at all but I used PL with regiment bases and found it pretty bloody solid. My only complaint with the rules is that it has loads of stuff around honour, but you need something like 5-6 battles to actually gain enough honour to do anything and there are no rules whatsoever for casualties, experience, etc. - a bit of a missed beat IMO. If I remember correctly these are Henry Turner minis? His SYW stuff is so tempting but I've barely got the P&S army out of the display cabinet since painting them and it feels very irresponsible to start something else without at least giving them an airing. Southern Heel fucked around with this message at 10:02 on Aug 10, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2023 09:39
|
|
|
Southern Heel posted:Absolutely loving it - have you tried playing the game yet, even with reduced unit count? I don't know if it was any inspiration at all but I used PL with regiment bases and found it pretty bloody solid. My only complaint with the rules is that it has loads of stuff around honour, but you need something like 5-6 battles to actually gain enough honour to do anything and there are no rules whatsoever for casualties, experience, etc. - a bit of a missed beat IMO. hm interesting note on the honour, i was curious how that would play out if i don't necessarily plan on stringing battles together. yeah turner stuff. i'm a big fan (as noted when i posted his latest KS which i'm trying desperately to avoid as i don't need ANOTHER project lol) also - they're actually based 2 inf/1 cav to a nickel and dropped into 50 mm x 75 mm sabot bases, so i can still do casualty removal but also use them as movement trays and for bigger games like FK&P when i get there e: haven't played yet because i'm also working on terrain simultaneously. i have a 9x5 table and it must be fully covered in terrain before i can play to sate my completeness obsession. i also struggle to put anything less than full painted armies o nthe table anyway lol hot cocoa on the couch fucked around with this message at 13:55 on Aug 10, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2023 13:32
|
|
|
I've come to terms with the fact that my ADHD is keeping me from getting 2 full armies of anything together for army-sized battles... What are the best skirmish games out there, regardless of era? I know of Sharp Practice and Saga, and I'm learning toward SPQR for some reason, but what else is there I might be missing?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2023 13:40
|
|
|
Sharp Practice and Saga are the 2 best imo, add in Chain of Command for "modern"
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2023 13:54
|
|
|
hot cocoa on the couch posted:yeah i'll play solo probably around 1/3-1/2 the time. but when playing big BA or CoC it would probably still be 1v1 or potentially 1v2 or 2v2 if the stars can align for the schedules of adults with families. i was thinking the same, that they're already fairly quick affairs, plus with the "snap to" group moves/shooting in BA that could potentially cut down on any analysis paralysis that could occur when there's 30 units on the table. turn 1 for sure would be quicker as well We play CoC with individually based 15mm and it’s fantastic size imo. You also basically just need one pack of figures per side and can then just focus on getting whatever fancy toys you want to flesh out with I use a mix of 1c euro and us pennies as bases for infantry. Perfect size and in a bizarre twist of fate, using actual currency ends up cheaper than buying dedicated bases
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2023 14:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 22:17 |
|
|
Count Thrashula posted:I've come to terms with the fact that my ADHD is keeping me from getting 2 full armies of anything together for army-sized battles... That's why 2-6-10mm are fantastic scales because you can undercoat, drybrush, then pick out two or three colours and call it good. I've got about 3 hours into five chaos dwarfs, and that same time elapsed allowed me to paint up my entire 2mm Napoleonic army:  It allowed me to get figures onto the table and get pushed around. Ultimately I found that I wanted to have a bit more focus on the modelling and painting aspects so I'm not going to pursue 2mm any further - but certainly a way to ensure you get completed armies to the table quickly. I definitely do not play with anything that's not painted, and ideally with appropriate terrain (part of the reason why I'm trying to stick with 6-10mm for my figures since I have a fair amount of scenery of an appropriate scale). hot cocoa on the couch posted:e: haven't played yet because i'm also working on terrain simultaneously. i have a 9x5 table and it must be fully covered in terrain before i can play to sate my completeness obsession. i also struggle to put anything less than full painted armies o nthe table anyway lol It strikes me a little strange you want to fill a 9x5 table before you play a single game lol - what if you don't like the system or scale? See above, I went all-in with 2mm but have decided it's not actually for me after all. Count Thrashula posted:I've come to terms with the fact that my ADHD is keeping me from getting 2 full armies of anything together for army-sized battles... Song of Drums and Shakos or whatever the Medieval version is? Pikeman's Lament / They who Would be Kings / etc. of the Rampant stable are technically skirmish games. Force on Force?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2023 14:41
|
|